XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 21.jul.2025 om 16:25 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/21/2025 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:18 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 7/20/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> Op 19.jul.2025 om 21:19 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>> On 7/19/2025 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot   
   >>>>>>>> simulate   
   >>>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion   
   >>>>>>>> from it.   
   >>>>>>>> (Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call   
   >>>>>>>> everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> For the purposes of this discussion this is the   
   >>>>>>> 100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact   
   >>>>>>> same one that I give to all the chat bots.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until   
   >>>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When   
   >>>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation   
   >>>>>>> and returns 0.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never   
   >>>>>> detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All of the Chat bots conclude that HHH(DDD) is correct   
   >>>>> to reject its input as non-halting because this input   
   >>>>> specified recursive simulation. They figure this out   
   >>>>> on their own without any prompting.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I just read a news item where an AI told that bread with shit is a   
   >>>> nice desert. So, we know what a proof by AI means.   
   >>>   
   >>> That would be a detectable error.   
   >>>   
   >>> There is no detectable error in the above link   
   >>> pertaining to the correct return value of HHH(DDD).   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Errors have been detected in the input for the chat-box and pointed   
   >> out to you.   
   >> E.g., that ' HHH simulates its input until it detects a non-   
   >> terminating behaviour pattern' contradicts 'When HHH detects such a   
   >> pattern it aborts its simulation and returns 0'.   
      
   As usual irrelevant claims.>   
   > void Infinite_Recursion()   
   > {   
   >    Infinite_Recursion();   
   > }   
   >   
   > void Infinite_Loop()   
   > {   
   >    HERE: goto HERE;   
   >    return;   
   > }   
      
   Since there is neither an infinite loop, nor an infinite recursion   
   specifies in DDD or any function it calls directly or indirectly, but   
   only a finite recursion done by HHH until it aborts, this is completely   
   irrelevant.   
      
   >   
   >    
   > Sure and we know that you are correct because the   
   > correct simulation of Infinite_Recursion() and   
   > Infinite_Loop() would eventually reach their "return"   
   > statement and terminate normally if we just wait   
   > long enough.   
      
   void Finite_Recursion (int N) {   
      if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);   
      printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");   
   }   
   >    
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)